• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Debate! What debate?

WildCat said:
If the iron sphericles were formed prior to the collapse, why would it be only 27 ng/m3 higher than normal on Sept. 13, and 270 ng/m3 above normal in October? Wouldn't this more likely be from cleanup efforts than from fires prior to collapse?
Click to expand...
Just repeating since Apollo20 is back.
 
R.Mackey said:
Just to point out the very, very obvious, while the effects of kinetic energy may scale with volume, the properties of a column do not.

I still haven't read the paper, but you cannot assume the upper and lower pieces are homogenous solids. This will eliminate the lateral strain energy contribution, which is the very heart of the NIST hypothesis for collapse initiation, and thus a major component of sustained collapse.
Click to expand...

? I thought that the heart of the NIST collapse initiation was thermal stresses leading to column unloading, which then led to overly stressed neighboring columns via the hat truss transferring load, leading to a chain reaction of column failures.

There are innumerable simplifying assumptions one can criticise as unrealistic. However, I can't think of any commonly known paper that makes so many as the Bazant Zhou paper. Have you considered relaying your concern about unrealistic assumptions to them? What about, in turn, doing so to NIST, which referred to the Bazant Zhou paper as justification in not pursuing a serious investigation into the collapse, proper?
 
gumboot said:
Which is not just an assumption, of course, but false, as the upper portion can be observed twisting in both collapses. If the columns are not aligned, the only thing between the massive columns and the ground is 70-odd (WTC2) or 90-odd (WTC1) light weight floor trusses.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

Do you realize that Bazant Zhou also make this false assumption?
 
metamars said:
? I thought that the heart of the NIST collapse initiation was thermal stresses leading to column unloading, which then led to overly stressed neighboring columns via the hat truss transferring load, leading to a chain reaction of column failures.
Click to expand...

You're confusing me. You are, I assume, familiar with NIST, or at least the FAQ, correct?

NIST FAQ said:
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
Click to expand...

This is precisely what would be missing from a homogeneous treatment of upper and lower pieces. For that reason, I don't feel your model and your attempt to blindly apply C&E is particuarly valid.

metamars said:
There are innumerable simplifying assumptions one can criticise as unrealistic. However, I can't think of any commonly known paper that makes so many as the Bazant Zhou paper. Have you considered relaying your concern about unrealistic assumptions to them? What about, in turn, doing so to NIST, which referred to the Bazant Zhou paper as justification in not pursuing a serious investigation into the collapse, proper?
Click to expand...

Nope. As I've already explained to you, in my own calculations, which are a corrected variation of the approaches of Ross and Dr. Greening, the progressive collapse is entirely expected over a large range of input conditions. For that reason, I consider NIST's decision entirely valid.

Bazant & Zhou are but one source NIST reviewed before reaching their conclusion. I see no particular reason to tear that paper apart, nor do I feel its validity or lack thereof reflects on NIST. If you'd like to discuss B&Z on its own merits, however, we certainly can, though this would be a significant change of subject.
 
metamars said:
My conclusion is that the Ross results are plausible, as I clearly stated. If you read my other posts on this thread, I've also made it crystal clear that I am ultimately trying to get qualified individuals to apply Calladine and English corrections to BZ, primarily, and Greening and Ross secondarily. Their works will doubtless be superior to my post.

The Gordon Ross scenario follows from the Bazant Zhou scenario, which assumes symmetry (and thus an axial strike amongst all the columns). If you say that any paper that assumes an axial strike must ultimately be discounted, I would not disagree.

The question is, though, when will NIST admit so much?
Click to expand...
Funny to support results that are wrong. The easiest way to refute your work is by just looking at what happen on 9/11. I hate to state the obvious, and with out proof from you that explosives were used, it makes yours, Ross's, and all others who support the towers standing after the failures as wrong.

If you want to academically pursue models that are wrong and energy numbers in error you should continue. But it would be easier for you to produce evidence that explosives were used. There is no evidence of explosives and your models are still wrong. You must of missed something or need to some sort of stochastic stimulation which would model the variable better and give you correct results, showing global collapse possible. You must of modeled the impact wrong and the damage to the steel supports in error. But your best bet is proving explosives were used, since you must believe they were used, yet you are in error. No facts for explosives in 5 years. Even Watergate was solved in 2 years, appears 9/11 was too.

The funniest thing about supporting ROSS is he is only short 186 pounds of TNT energy for TOTAL GLOBAL COLLAPSE. 186 POUNDS OF TNT! TRUTHERS ARE THE MOST CHALLENGED PEOPLE ON THE PLANET WITH MATH, PHYSICS, OR ANY CRITICAL THINKING WHAT SO EVER! This simple observation is seen every time a truther pops up. Ross would be dead wrong, remember to run if Ross says it is safe; run FASTER. I thought it was funny his sortage was smaller that the errors I found in his work by a factor of 2; guess Ross's stuff was wrong...

Ross's deficit is not a factor of safety it is in the simple 10 to 20 percent range of Global collapse not happening. Not enough to trust the towers would not fail and fall to the ground. And wrong by events. I love it when your work is backed up with real world results. How wrong is Ross; 100 percent. (based on events, math, physics, and lack of evidence)
 
Last edited:
Wildcat:

Good Point!

But if it's re-suspended zinc particulate, why was the zinc so finely divided to begin with?
 
A W Smith said:
But throughout that entire series. They never got to Boldlygo. So man has still never been to Boldlygo.
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me? Kirk slept with life forms that weren't even human! That's pretty bold IMHO.
 
A W Smith said:
But throughout that entire series. They never got to Boldlygo. So man has still never been to Boldlygo.







Whats that clickin noise?
Click to expand...

Yes they did get to Boldlygo, and I have the proof, it was in the series Star Trek the next generation, the Enterprize in that series only had one head.
For thousands of crew people.

I should know I have a copy of the plans.
 
pomeroo said:
That's not quite correct. James T. Kirk is a fictional character. The sentence should read: "William Shatner slept with life forms that weren't even human!"
Click to expand...

The Life Forms that slept with Kirk were fictional Characters to, so you would have to name all that Actresses too.
I await the list.
Also if the Actresses are human it destroys the who point of the post in the first place.
 
pomeroo said:
That's not quite correct. James T. Kirk is a fictional character. The sentence should read: "William Shatner slept with life forms that weren't even human!"
Click to expand...

Ahhh, so you watch Boston Legal too! Two words. Denny Crane.
 
Just thought I would show you Gentilemen, and Ladies the beast I am looking at for the reaction mentioned.

Thebeast1.jpg

Thebeast5.jpg


It is just sulfuric acid, Calcium sulfate, and calcium chloride from the decay of concrete, when exposed to sulfur. Quite common actually, and in certain circumstances possibly quite deadly.
 
I always feel relieved to see a CC post, because that means he hasn't blown himself up! Let's be careful out there. [/[SIZE=-1]Sergeant Phil Esterhaus][/SIZE]
 
Gravy said:
I always feel relieved to see a CC post, because that means he hasn't blown himself up! Let's be careful out there. [/[SIZE=-1]Sergeant Phil Esterhaus][/SIZE]
Click to expand...

Yeah but if I just followed the instructions on the bag of calcium chloride that says do not mix with Zinc may explode what would I learn?

I just read the instructions and do it anyway, but I try to do it as safely as possible.
I still remember you guys telling me not to play with thermite. That was tame compared to this stuff, would tell you more, but that I have to leave to Apollo20 when he is ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom